In the early stages of this Republican primary cycle, it seemed like we were watching an endless season of the reality television series Survivor. Each week (literally) we would wait to see which contestant would temporarily and surprisingly surge into frontrunner status, and which contestant would be "voted off the island" and have to pack it up and go home. So Survivor seemed like a pretty apt analogy.
But recently things have gotten so vicious that three of the remaining Republican presidential candidates appear to be actually trying to kill each other (politically speaking, of course). In their selfish quest to become the Republican nominee, each of the remaining contenders has left the long-standing Eleventh Commandment popularized by Ronald Reagan in the dust: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican".
It's not enough anymore to just wound the other guy; he has to be taken out without any chance of survival or resurgence. It's become a knock down, drag out fight-to-the-death; a take-no-prisoners, throw-caution-to-the-wind, never-mind-the consequences, winner-takes-all with prejudice, highly toxic approach to presidential campaigning with an unprecedented level of vitriol.
Having just read the first two Hunger Games books at the prodding of my teenage daughter on our spring break vacation (and just in time for release of the movie), I'm now thinking The Hunger Games seems a much more apt comparison for what the 2012 Republican primary has now devolved into.
You have a "Career" contestant/"tribute" in Mitt Romney, someone who has been groomed for the Games his entire life, having received the best training possible with all of the money and resources available to someone of his privileged stature. And based upon tradition and history, this Career contestant would appear to be in the strongest position by far to emerge victorious in the Games. Romney's main challenger, Santorum, however, is a scrappy upstart from a poor coal mining community who does not have the same pre-ordained privilege, training and money in his background, but seems to appeal to the masses with his authenticity (but that's where the comparison to the main character, Katniss, ends). And lastly, you have Gingrich who is so blinded by ego that he is willing to say anything rather than see either of the other two candidates succeed. His philosophy seems to be "if I can't have it, I'll make sure no one else can."
Things have escalated into the red zone on such an extreme, personal level that it is very difficult to see how these candidates will be able to unite and work together down the road for success in the general election. Too much dirty laundry continues to be aired in public on an ongoing basis, and the more people see and hear it, the less attractive each of these candidates becomes and the more these negative images are reinforced.
The delegate numbers seem to support an eventual Romney victory. The question is, at what cost will this eventual win by Romney have been attained? What will be the lasting damage to his candidacy in the general election and to the Republican Party itself going forward? As in the Hunger Games, I would suggest than it may be the existing system and structure supporting and allowing the absurd deadly games to continue which ultimately will be significantly undermined.
And that may actually end up being a good thing for both parties, and democracy in general. For the Democrats, in the short run it may help ensure a President Obama re-election. For the Republicans, it will hopefully force a seriously needed post-election reboot of the Republican party's platforms, principles and overall approach to campaigning and governing in a 21st Century multi-cultural, evaporating middle class American society.
But for now, sit back and vicariously enjoy the never-ending daily mass entertainment and political bloodshed that is the 2012 Republican Hunger Games.
Follow Fred Goldring on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LABlueDevil
Greg Garrett: The Hunger Games: Why It Matters
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
serving individuals one and all.
Just saying.
If any one of these clowns were to actually win the presidency, the last four years are going to seem like a cake walk. The policies the GOP touts will incinerate the middle class in this country, and starve the ever expanding lower class into oblivion. They scare the hell out of me; I would be less afraid of real live werewolves or vampires than I am of these guys.
I can only imagine one 'debate' I might be willing to watch; put em all in a shark tank and see who actually tries to eat the other clownfish.
It is clear to me that, starting 25-30 years ago, someone in that party decided to steer it hard to the right, regardless where the electorate is. Why?
Frankly, I can't be sure, but the implications bother me a lot. Why would a party do that, when everyone knows that you must attract enough moderate votes to win elections?
What if you don't really care whether you can win any elections?
They obviously want power. But they appear to be happy consolidating a rabid, faithful core, and not only allowing, but actively FORCING more moderate members to leave. How could that possibly bring success?
It can work in one of two ways:
1. You careen hard right, and somehow, you miraculously convince enough to vote for you and so you win everything you want.
2. You can't get elected, but can place enough members in various governmen positions to create governental chaos and gridlock. Meanwhile you use violent rhetoric in the media to foment fear, hatred, hysteria, and violence. The goal is to drive the moderate electorate into accepting drastic measures to 'save the country'; a police state, required to counter 'Second Amendment remedies'.
Look familiar?
They "call' for one thing and then do exactly the opposite, oppressing the rights of the majority in the name of freedom for the powerful minority.